If you or a loved one has been affected by medical negligence in New York, our experienced New York medical malpractice lawyer team can help. MDLaw Firm has recovered millions for victims of medical negligence across all five boroughs — call 347-524-5777 for a free consultation.
Delayed Diagnosis of Lung Cancer NY: Missed Radiographic Findings
Excerpt: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the United States. When a radiologist misses a lung nodule on a chest X-ray or CT scan, the delay can be the difference between life and death.
Table of Contents
- The Burden of Lung Cancer in New York
- How Lung Cancer Is Diagnosed
- Missed Nodules on Chest X-Ray
- Missed Nodules on CT Scan
- Failure to Follow Up on Incidental Findings
- Pathology Errors in Lung Cancer
- Failure to Recommend Biopsy
- The Impact of Delayed Lung Cancer Diagnosis
- Lavern's Law and the Discovery Rule
- Proving Causation: Survival Statistics
- Expert Witnesses in Lung Cancer Cases
- Statute of Limitations
- Frequently Asked Questions
The Burden of Lung Cancer in New York
Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the United States, killing approximately 130,000 Americans each year — more than breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer combined. In New York State, approximately 14,000 people are diagnosed with lung cancer each year.
The key to survival is early detection. When lung cancer is caught at Stage I (localized), the 5-year survival rate is approximately 60%. When it has spread to distant organs (Stage IV), the survival rate drops to approximately 6%.
A delayed diagnosis — caused by a missed nodule on imaging, failure to follow up on an incidental finding, or pathology error — can allow lung cancer to progress from a curable stage to a terminal one. Every month of delay matters.
If you or a loved one suffered because of a delayed lung cancer diagnosis in New York, this guide explains your legal rights.
[Link to: /medical-malpractice/misdiagnosis]
How Lung Cancer Is Diagnosed
Screening
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends annual low-dose CT (LDCT) screening for adults aged 50-80 who have a 20 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years.
Failure to offer appropriate screening to eligible patients — or failure to follow up on screening results — may be negligence.
Imaging
- Chest X-ray — The most basic imaging; may miss small nodules
- CT scan — More sensitive; the standard for evaluating lung nodules
- PET scan — Used to evaluate nodule metabolic activity and stage cancer
- MRI — Used for specific situations (e.g., evaluating brain metastases)
Biopsy
- CT-guided needle biopsy — A needle is guided into the nodule to obtain tissue
- Bronchoscopy — A flexible tube is used to examine airways and obtain tissue
- Surgical biopsy — VATS (video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery) or open biopsy
Pathology
The pathologist examines the tissue under a microscope and determines:
- Whether cancer is present — The most critical question
- The type of cancer — Non-small cell (adenocarcinoma, squamous cell, large cell) vs. small cell
- The grade — How aggressive the cancer appears
- Molecular markers — EGFR, ALK, ROS1, PD-L1 — which guide targeted therapy
Missed Nodules on Chest X-Ray
Chest X-rays remain the most commonly ordered imaging study, but they are relatively insensitive for detecting lung nodules. Studies have shown that up to 25% of lung nodules visible on chest X-ray are missed by radiologists.
Why Nodules Are Missed on X-Ray
- Size — Nodules under 1 cm may be difficult to see
- Location — Nodules hidden behind the heart, ribs, clavicle, or hila may be missed
- Density — Subtle nodules may blend with normal lung markings
- Satisfaction of search — The radiologist finds one abnormality and stops looking for others
- Inadequate image quality — Poor technique or patient positioning
The Standard of Care
The standard of care requires the radiologist to:
- Carefully review all areas of the chest X-ray
- Compare with prior studies — To detect new or growing nodules
- Report any suspicious findings — And recommend follow-up imaging or biopsy
- Use appropriate terminology — Including measurements and recommendations
[Link to: /medical-malpractice/radiology-errors]
Missed Nodules on CT Scan
CT scans are more sensitive than chest X-rays for detecting lung nodules, but they are still subject to interpretation errors. A nodule that is visible on a CT scan may be missed by the radiologist.
The Fleischner Society Guidelines
The Fleischner Society has published guidelines for the management of incidental pulmonary nodules detected on CT scans. These guidelines provide specific recommendations for follow-up based on:
- Nodule size — Smaller nodules require less urgent follow-up
- Nodule characteristics — Solid, part-solid, and ground-glass nodules have different risks
- Patient risk factors — Age, smoking history, history of cancer
Failure to follow the Fleischner Society guidelines — or failure to recommend appropriate follow-up imaging — may be negligence.
Lung-RADS
The American College of Radiology (ACR) has developed Lung-RADS — a classification system for lung CT screening findings, similar to BI-RADS for mammography. Failure to properly classify a nodule using Lung-RADS — or failure to follow up on a suspicious Lung-RADS category — may be negligence.
Failure to Follow Up on Incidental Findings
One of the most common and dangerous errors is the failure to follow up on incidental findings. A lung nodule may be discovered on a CT scan performed for a different reason (such as evaluating trauma or cardiac disease). The radiologist may note the nodule in the report — but if the finding is not communicated to the treating physician or patient, or if appropriate follow-up is not arranged, the nodule may grow into a cancer that could have been treated earlier.
The standard of care requires:
- Documentation — The finding must be documented in the radiology report
- Communication — Critical findings must be communicated to the treating physician
- Recommendations — The report should recommend appropriate follow-up
- System-level tracking — The institution should have a system for tracking incidental findings
Pathology Errors in Lung Cancer
Pathology errors in lung cancer diagnosis can be devastating:
- False negative — Missing cancer that is present on the biopsy
- False positive — Diagnosing cancer when it is not present
- Misclassification — Identifying the wrong type of lung cancer (which requires different treatment)
- Molecular testing errors — Misidentifying EGFR, ALK, or other markers that guide targeted therapy
The standard of care requires adequate sampling, proper processing, expert interpretation, and molecular testing where indicated.
[Link to: /medical-malpractice/pathology-errors]
Failure to Recommend Biopsy
When a lung nodule is suspicious for cancer — based on size, growth, or characteristics — the standard of care requires biopsy or surgical resection. Failure to recommend biopsy of a suspicious nodule — or delay in biopsy — can allow cancer to grow and spread.
The Impact of Delayed Lung Cancer Diagnosis
Staging and Survival
| Stage | Description | 5-Year Survival | |-------|-------------|----------------| | Stage I | Localized to the lung | ~60% | | Stage II | Spread to nearby lymph nodes | ~35% | | Stage III | Spread to mediastinal lymph nodes | ~20% | | Stage IV | Metastatic (distant spread) | ~6% |
A delay of months can allow cancer to progress from a highly curable early stage (Stage I) to a less curable advanced stage (Stage III or IV).
Lavern's Law and the Discovery Rule
New York's Lavern's Law is particularly relevant to delayed lung cancer diagnosis cases. The patient may not discover the diagnostic error — the missed nodule, the unreported incidental finding, the misread pathology — until months or years later.
Under the discovery rule, the statute of limitations may begin when the patient discovered (or should have discovered) the malpractice.
Proving Causation: Survival Statistics
In a delayed lung cancer diagnosis case, the plaintiff must prove that the delay caused additional harm. This requires:
Expert Testimony
- A radiologist — On whether the nodule should have been detected
- A pulmonologist — On the standard of care for nodule management
- An oncologist — On the impact of delay on treatment and survival
- A biostatistician — On the reduction in survival probability
The Loss of Chance Doctrine
New York's loss of chance doctrine allows recovery when the physician's negligence reduced the patient's chance of survival — even if the prognosis was already poor.
Statute of Limitations
Under CPLR 214-a, the statute of limitations is 2.5 years from the date of the malpractice. Under Lavern's Law, the clock may start when the patient discovered the malpractice.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I sue for delayed lung cancer diagnosis?
Yes. If a radiologist missed a nodule on imaging, a physician failed to follow up on an incidental finding, or a pathologist misread a biopsy — and the delay caused additional harm — you may have a malpractice claim.
Can a lung nodule be missed on a CT scan?
Yes. While CT scans are more sensitive than chest X-rays, radiologists can still miss nodules — particularly small ones, or those in difficult locations. The standard of care requires careful review and comparison with prior studies.
What are the Fleischner Society guidelines?
The Fleischner Society guidelines provide recommendations for managing incidental pulmonary nodules based on size, characteristics, and patient risk factors. Failure to follow these guidelines may be negligence.
Can my CT scan be re-reviewed?
Yes. Your attorney can obtain your CT images and have them re-reviewed by an independent radiologist to determine whether the nodule should have been detected.
How long do I have to file a claim?
Under CPLR 214-a, the deadline is generally 2.5 years from the date of the malpractice. Lavern's Law may extend this for cancer cases.
If you or a loved one has been affected by a delayed lung cancer diagnosis in New York, contact MDLaw Firm at 347-524-5777 for a free consultation.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. No attorney-client relationship is created by reading this article or contacting MDLaw Firm.